Hi.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 11:40:30 +0200
Gannholm Torbj_rn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I feel I must clarify my position on the conceptual equivalence of a node
> and a field (or a row, or whatever).
> Please note that I think the node and the xml-database is a better way
> because it is more flexible with less trouble, but the fact is that we
> sometimes encode metadata in a field, for example the single text-field
> "contact" could be encoded as "type;value" like "phone;+46 920 259677" or
> "email;[EMAIL PROTECTED]", which would then have to be
> programatically split at those rare times when we need just the one value.
>
> So I still hold that as a user it is possible to view my data in whatever
> way is more convenient for me. (Perhaps it is even my right?).
>
> Also this nice term metadata is in an xml-document just placed in a node
> like everything else, sometimes in an attribute-node, sometimes in a
> text-node. There is nothing that forces me to place metadata in an attribute
> and "real" data in a "real" node, sometimes the mere presence of a node IS
> my data.
Honestly, I don't understand your problem/question! Is your question something
like:
Why use XML/XML-Database if we can do (more or less) the same with
SQL/RDBMS?
If so, this would end in a very general discussion. And I'm not sure if this
list would be the right place for such discussions.
Lars
--
___________________________________________________________________
Lars Martin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
XML:DB Initiative http://www.xmldb.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact adminstrator: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Read archived messages: http://archive.xmldb.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------
